# Gay marriage opponents grasping at straws. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660 "2009-05-16T17:32:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/181 "2009-05-21T03:01:40Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I don’t know about the percentage, but I believe there is a not insignificant number of Americans who’d love for Gays to be “rounded up and killed.” I place it in quotes because I’ve heard people say those exact words. So yes, I really believe it. Well, I don’t doubt that there are people who believe that, or that the rodeo producer referred to in an earlier post is one of them. But it seems hard to believe that a significant number of Americans are genocidal. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/182 "2009-05-21T03:06:15Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, I don’t doubt that there are people who believe that, or that the rodeo producer referred to in an earlier post is one of them. But it seems hard to believe that a significant number of Americans are genocidal. I doubt they think of it as genocidal. The homophobes don’t see homosexuals as people who happen to be born homosexual, but as monsters who chose to be morally corrupt and enemies of God. And equate them with child molesters as well; would you be shocked if I said most people would like to see child molesters killed ? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/183 "2009-05-21T03:12:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Bolding added. Two groups. Separate by your own damn definition. Equal, you insist (even though they’re not), but separate-but-equal nonetheless. > > When will you call for resegregating the schools and buses, too? :rolleyes:This will be my last response to you. Why? You’re just not bright enough to make this worth the effort. Seriously, you have got to be one of the dumbest posters on these boards. This point was explained to you in detail in the other thread more than once. Still it hasn’t sunk in. Also, in your attempt to make your point you do so so lamely it almost hurts. I’ll just point out, my soft-headed friend, that desgregating never sought to abolish two groups. They simply wanted those two groups—1) blacks and 2) whites—to be able to enjoy the same opportunities. Now I suggest you go back to that other thread and try to digest what I, or at least what **mswas** (who is on your side by the way), tried to explain to you. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/184 "2009-05-21T03:13:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me start by pointing out that, unlike you perhaps, this board is a form of recreation for me. I have a life. There are times I have time and can indulge myself here. Other times, real life makes demands of me much more important than me responding to a board where only about 30% of the people can even type posts worth reading, never mind responding to. > > Now, to answer your question. First, I’ll point out that you frame it in a way that is roll-of-the-eyes loaded. Do you really expect that I’d say, “Yes, a word’s etymology or the rights, dignity, and self-esteem of human beings”? Come on, man. Don’t be an ass. Don’t jump in with the other 70%. > > The fact of the matter is that words are valuable to us. (I’ve discussed the word “hero” several times, and the sad way that it is being adulterated.) We have an institution that has been foundational. It recognizes the natural drive for man and woman to come together and directs in in a way that is most beneficial to society. I think kids growing up seeing that society values it cause them to value it themselves, as has occurred for centuries. That is how we got here. It has served us well, as much as it may be suffering of late. I believe that by continuing to hold up traditional OS marriage, we provide valuable signposts for future generations. And that benefits them, their children, and society at large. > > “Marry”, “wed”, etc. are not threatened when the use is far removed from the original meaning. Again, take the word “hero”. When a baseball slugger is called a hero when he hits a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth, there is little confusion as to what the word means. But when every soldier is referred to as a hero simply by donning the uniform, I think real damage is done. We are working toward obscuring and adulterating a word. A word that we should reserve its import for the real thing. I feel the same way about “marriage”. Let’s talk about wedding one idea to another, male and female plug ends, and heroic baseball players. But let’s try to reserve “marriage”, like “hero”, for what we want it to mean. Now, I know we disagree and what we want it to mean, but that is part of my reason. I hope that helps your understanding of my position. "Let me start out by saying you have no life, and I do . . . " Now that that’s out of the way . . . The difference you’re not addressing is that no one is made to feel inferior by birth or ashamed of who they are in your attempted hero analogue. You’re dodging the root of the question. What I want you to answer, is _what do you feel for this whole class of people that you’re willing to marginalize for a word?_ Do you have no compassion for people who cry themselves to sleep at night because you want to hold for yourself a word that they cannot have, through absolutely no fault of their own? _A word?_ ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/185 "2009-05-21T03:17:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I doubt they think of it as genocidal. The homophobes don’t see homosexuals as people who happen to be born homosexual, but as monsters who chose to be morally corrupt and enemies of God. And equate them with child molesters as well; would you be shocked if I said most people would like to see child molesters killed ? Much as I hate to subscribe to \*\*Der Trihs]b]'s diatribes, I have to say that for a ridiculously large proportion of self-professed Real Christians ™, he has hit the nail right on the head. It is for them not insulting to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality, because they are all perversions against God’s Law, chosen for fleeting pleasure. And nothing anyone can say will sway their minds from this mindset. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/186 "2009-05-21T03:30:04Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > "Let me start out by saying you have no life, and I do . . . " > > Now that that’s out of the way . . . > > The difference you’re not addressing is that no one is made to feel inferior by birth or ashamed of who they are in your attempted hero analogue. You’re dodging the root of the question. What I want you to answer, is _what do you feel for this whole class of people that you’re willing to marginalize for a word?_ Do you have no compassion for people who cry themselves to sleep at night because you want to hold for yourself a word that they cannot have, through absolutely no fault of their own? _A word?_ The first part of my post came off with snark when none was intended. I see that it was poorly worded. I was simply trying to explain _my_ situation. My apologies. Now, if people are crying themselves to sleep over this, they need psychiatric help. That’s not meant to be harsh, just a simple fact. And all of us are born with all kinds of shortcomings. There are people who are extremely unattractive, really dumb, midgets, etc. Also there are many of us that were born without the requisite talent to do something we’d give a few years of our lives for, whether that be play professional sports, be a model, movie star, brain surgeon, singing sensation, etc. If any of us cry ourselves to sleep at night over that, we, too, need psychiatric help. As I’ve mentioned, I have friends and family members that are gay, blah, blah blah. I wish them no ill and much happiness. But I see the role the word plays in society as more important than forfeiting it for their pleasure. Especially when it is not necessary to do so. There is another route to them being able to enjoy all the rights and privileges that “marriage” affords. Also, if you care so much about self image, how about having gays embrace their gayness, hold their heads up and start their own strain of the institution with full knowledge it is as equal to marriage as blacks are to whites and man is to woman? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/187 "2009-05-21T03:42:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And all of us are born with all kinds of shortcomings. This is the crux of the issue, and why you will never be able to shake the accusations of bigoty. Being gay is not a shortcoming. It’s normal and natural. There is no “ideal” that needs to be upheld by excluding gays. Their families and their ability to raise children are not inferior to straights’. Since you fundamentally disagree with this, there can be no rapprochement with you. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/188 "2009-05-21T03:43:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, if you care so much about self image, how about having gays embrace their gayness, hold their heads up and start their own strain of the institution with full knowledge it is as equal to marriage as blacks are to whites and man is to woman? False analogy. Gays are to straights as blacks are to whites and men are to women. Gay civil unions, on the other hand, are to straight marriages as black drinking fountains are to white drinking fountains. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/189 "2009-05-21T04:14:27Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > False analogy. Gays are to straights as blacks are to whites and men are to women. > > Gay civil unions, on the other hand, are to straight marriages as black drinking fountains are to white drinking fountains. [channeling magellan01] Ah, but there is one single source of the water for both, so it is all fine and dandy and perfectly reasonable and equitable.[/channeling] ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/190 "2009-05-21T04:24:00Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Much as I hate to subscribe to \*\*Der Trihs]b]'s diatribes, I have to say that for a ridiculously large proportion of self-professed Real Christians ™, he has hit the nail right on the head. It is for them not insulting to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality, because they are all perversions against God’s Law, chosen for fleeting pleasure. And nothing anyone can say will sway their minds from this mindset. The problem I have with that is that it doesn’t fit. If a significant portion of the population really thinks that gays should be killed, then you wouldn’t have the advances in gay rights that there’s been over the past 20 years. A group like NAMBLA (to go with the analogy that’s been made) hasn’t been effective at all in passing their agenda because there really is that level of hatred of pedophilia. It’s not accepted at all. With gay rights, though, you have gay marriage in 4 states, civil unions in more. You have anti-discrimination laws in some places and a nationwide anti-discrimination law that always almost passes. You have people who can publicly admit their sexuality. A politican could stand up and say, “I think we should execute child molesters”, without hurting his career. He wouldn’t be able to say “I think we should execute gays” without bad effects. I’m not saying that there isn’t homphobia out there. There clearly is. But I don’t think there’s the kind of wide spread exterminationism. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/191 "2009-05-21T04:27:34Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > This is the crux of the issue, and why you will never be able to shake the accusations of bigoty. Being gay is not a shortcoming. It’s normal and natural. There is no “ideal” that needs to be upheld by excluding gays. Their families and their ability to raise children are not inferior to straights’. Since you fundamentally disagree with this, there can be no rapprochement with you. Please. It’s a shortcoming for a particular thing. Just as not being a really fast runner is a shortcoming for being an NFL running back. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/192 "2009-05-21T04:30:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Please. It’s a shortcoming for a particular thing. Just as not being a really fast runner is a shortcoming for being an NFL running back. Over and over you make these horrendously faulty analogies, then have the temerity to wonder why people don’t “get” your point. Marriage is not equivalent to being an NFL running back. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/193 "2009-05-21T04:33:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > False analogy. Gays are to straights as blacks are to whites and men are to women. > > Gay civil unions, on the other hand, are to straight marriages as black drinking fountains are to white drinking fountains. My analogy is not false at all. But I’ll play. Even if you insist in parsing it this way, there is no benefit to society to having white only fountains and black only fountains. Not the same with marriage and civil unions. They allow the two groups to enjoy the exact same set of rights and privileges equally, while preserving the traditional meaning of “marriage” and allowing society at large to benefit from that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/194 "2009-05-21T04:36:56Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Over and over you make these horrendously faulty analogies, then have the temerity to wonder why people don’t “get” your point. Marriage is not equivalent to being an NFL running back. You may want to look up the word analogy. But I take your response to mean, “Oops, that makes sense. DRAT!” You just wanted to jump on my use of the word “shortcoming” as being pejorative. Sorry to disappoint you. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/195 "2009-05-21T04:48:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Even if you insist in parsing it this way, there is no benefit to society to having white only fountains and black only fountains. Segregation advocates certainly thought there was. In fact, maintaining social separation between blacks and whites was seen by many mid-twentieth-century Americans as absolutely essential to society’s survival. > [@magellan01](#): > > Not the same with marriage and civil unions. They allow the two groups to enjoy the exact same set of rights and privileges equally, while preserving the traditional meaning of “marriage” and allowing society at large to benefit from that. Just as racially segregated drinking fountains allowed both blacks and whites to have the exact same drinking water, while preserving traditional racial purity and allowing society at large to benefit from that. Yes, the people who espoused such arguments were being reactionary bigots whose position was later thoroughly repudiated by the vast majority of society. I’m afraid that shoe fits you perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/196 "2009-05-21T04:55:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My analogy is not false at all. But I’ll play. Even if you insist in parsing it this way, there is no benefit to society to having white only fountains and black only fountains. Not the same with marriage and civil unions. They allow the two groups to enjoy the exact same set of rights and privileges equally, while preserving the traditional meaning of “marriage” and allowing society at large to benefit from that. So, you’ve got tradition and some vague, unspecified, “benefit”. Completely unlike segregation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/197 "2009-05-21T05:24:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The problem I have with that is that it doesn’t fit. If a significant portion of the population really thinks that gays should be killed, then you wouldn’t have the advances in gay rights that there’s been over the past 20 years. No, it just means that the most hateful of them are outnumbered; not that there aren’t tens of millions of people like that. Outnumbered, and old; I believe that much of what advances have occurred has been due to the bigots dying off. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/198 "2009-05-21T05:26:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Now, if people are crying themselves to sleep over this, they need psychiatric help. That’s not meant to be harsh, just a simple fact. You have _no idea_ what bigotry and discrimination does to a person, then. > [@magellan01](#): > > And all of us are born with all kinds of shortcomings. There are people who are extremely unattractive, really dumb, midgets, etc. See, you compare being gay to being dumb, ugly, and a “midget”, and yet you get all shocked and aghast when people call you a bigot. Do you really not see that what you’re saying is bigoted? > [@magellan01](#): > > But I see the role the word plays in society as more important than forfeiting it for their pleasure. A word. Is more important. Than basic human rights and dignity. Astounding. AB-SOLUTELY astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/199 "2009-05-21T05:55:44Z")
Slightly off topic, then again, maybe not. I am in full support of homosexual marriage and I’d wager all I’m worth in a _logical_ argument for or against it – with me arguing in the positive of course. Simply put, I haven’t seen any coherent arguments against it. That aside, I am curious as to how gay couples determine who is who – IOW, in their relationships do they make a distinction between traditionally male/female roles? Seeing how that’s pretty much gone (going) by the wayside in heterosexual, long term, relationships, I was wondering if the gay community felt likewise. As in who plays the husband and who takes the wife’s role. In addition to that, do gay couples in general tend to stay with one another more [longer] than their hetero equivalents? Or dare I say it, are they, on the whole, more conservative than straights with respect to the so called “sacredness” of marriage? Because that would be the best ever hoot & holler. Logically speaking I see no reason for there to be any differences, but it’d be simply awesome if there were – a Silver Bullet so to speak. Trust my queries are not taken as offensive but rather a matter of fighting my own ignorance on those particular issues. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660/200 "2009-05-21T05:59:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Namely? I kind of got into that later on in the post. > [@](#): > > The law IS what is written down. There is no (societal) law that is not written down. Now, that body of law is not stagnant, it can be expanded or narrowed. How? When a case is brought to the courts and a decision is handed down. That decision either adheres to existing law, or due to a nuance in the case an existing law is interpreted in a new way. If so, that becomes precedent which can then be cited in future cases. But all “law” is codified. But there’s your problem; precedent can be cited in future cases, but it need not be. And when it is, it may be reinterpreted. And reinterpretations aren’t necessarily codified in the text of the law. What’s stopping someone claiming that your method doesn’t mean that the history of marriage law precedent applies to civil unions? And vice-versa - where’s the protection that ensures landmark decisions in civil union cases will then automatically apply to marriages? > [@](#): > > But this can be fixed by using very explicit language, language that also cites the intent. Judges can reinterpret that very intent. > [@](#): > > Do you not think language could be crafted that would give judges no wiggle room? I do. No, actually. I don’t think there’s languages so well crafted that judges have no wiggle room whatsoever, but that’s probably a good thing, to some extent. But I do believe language can be crafted to reduce wiggle room to the maximum extent possible, most certainly; I think though that language would need to be as inclusive as possible, and I don’t think that any language which explicitly sets out two seperate groups (as per your suggested language) fulfils that. > [@](#): > > There is room for interpretation when language is ambiguous. But if there’s a law that plainly states that a person, e.g., _must_ be 16 years old in order to qualify for a driver’s license, there’s nothing to argue. Nothing to interpret. I’m certain that such language can be crafted. I spent five minutes on it and it seems pretty good. What’s a person? Do mental or physical handicaps raise or lower the bar? Does a history of criminal behaviour alter matters at all? Does the government recognise foreign driver’s license holders where the bar is set differently? Is this law set federally, or state by state? If the latter, are states obliged to respect driver’s licenses of different states? I spent five minutes on that and i’m not a lawyer. Your language is leaky. That’s going to be true of most language, really, but as I said if you want to decrease the possible interpretation then your method adds more wiggle room than is necessary. > [@](#): > > I don’t see what room they have. And what those rights and responsibilities are is unimportant. Both groups are covered by the same set of laws. The beauty of this is that whatever group is the dominant one is stuck hurting themselves every time the wish to hurt the other group. What the specific rights and privileges are is a different issue than what were discussing. We’re discussing whether or not they both are to, or can, be treated equally. And I believe they can. No, we aren’t. I too believe they can be treated equally. It is most certainly a possibility. But I believe that, given language that leaves wiggle room, a hypothetical highly motivated group or groups willing to bring case after case to the courts in an attempt to get different interpretations will result in an inequal state of affairs. Because there only has to be one decision for things to become inequal again. And I believe that those hypothetical groups exist, on both sides of this debate. This is language which has to survive an onslaught of legal cases, money, and radical opinion. I don’t believe your language does the best job of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-opponents-grasping-at-straws/496660.md?page=11)